Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations. You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable.

It doesn't make any sense to ban large capacity sugary drinks when you can just reload. Hell, I can reload my big gulp so fast you would barely even notice the gap in my gulping. Plus its very easy to make a home made cup.

Schroedinger's Glory Hole:Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions

You can't regulate these things, people will find a way to circumvent whatever you come up with.

Where I live bars close at midnight, however many years ago you could still buy beer/wine until 1 am. They passed a law making those hours end at midnight as well, thinking it would cut down on drinking and alcohol related problems. The bar goers simply stocked up beforehand or simply left the bar 15 minutes early to buy more beer. The only thing they managed to do is piss off the guy who gets off work at midnight and wants to pick up a 6 pack after a stressful night at work.

HotWingConspiracy:MacWizard: Popcorn Johnny: The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.

And stupid enough not to consider that people might refill smaller sizes.

That was understood from the beginning. The thing is, most people don't refill when given a drink proportioned for a human. When people get the elephant serving they feel compelled to drink it all.

MacWizard:Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions...

It seems as if you answered your own question.

Taking incomplete quotes, it seems as if you make uncited infographics for GOP shill Facebook pages.

HotWingConspiracy:MacWizard: Popcorn Johnny: The thing that bothers me about a politician attempting to ban large sodas is that a politician is arrogant enough to think it's something they should be able to do.

And stupid enough not to consider that people might refill smaller sizes.

That was understood from the beginning. The thing is, most people don't refill when given a drink proportioned for a human. When people get the elephant serving they feel compelled to drink it all.

Don't go bringing actual observations of human behavior into it. He's got that there common sense that tells him he's got it figured out better than the people that spent time and money designing the policy. If all that fancy high-falutin policy talkin can be undone by good old common sense, then no one ever has to be worry about being infromed on any particular subject.

Limiting the size of sodas in restaurants is good for public health. Over a population the size of New York City, it is a change that will result in measurable savings and improvement in quality of life. The only legal discussion worth having is whether the government has this kind of power over private businesses.

The fact that this judge is even discussing the merits of the policy and bringing up the refills shows that this is a political move by a low rung judge looking to make some headlines off Bloomberg's name.

Bloomberg said he was completely confident the city will win on appeal.

"We're going to appeal, we believe the judge's decision was clearly in error. We will clearly prevail on appeal," he said. "We think the judge is totally in error and we are very confident we'll win on appeal."

There are just so many work-arounds. The only thing is does effectively is inconvenience people. Reminds me of those oddball laws in some states where drinks have to be made from small bottles only and doubles are illegal.

salvador.hardin:The fact that this judge is even discussing the merits of the policy and bringing up the refills shows that this is a political move by a low rung judge looking to make some headlines off Bloomberg's name.

Basically. The timing is what gave it away for me. 24 hours before the law goes in to action? Dude wanted his name in the papers as some kind of hero.

I was wondering if that sort of semi-ban was even legal, but couldn't think of why it wouldn't be. Misguided, dickish and a demonstrating a lack of knowledge of how to work the soda fountain, sure. But legal? I guess I was only partly right about that since the judge seems to be having more of a problem with consistency in the wording of the ban rather than with the idea that Daddy Bloomberg seems to want to encase all New Yorkers in fire retardant bubble wrap and then pass a law labeling the popping of a bubble on that wrap as "attempted murder". For their own protection, of course. 'Cuz New Yorkers are just so delicate, you know.

jfivealive:It doesn't make any sense to ban large capacity sugary drinks when you can just reload. Hell, I can reload my big gulp so fast you would barely even notice the gap in my gulping. Plus its very easy to make a home made cup.

Registration or licensing of anyone wishing to purchase dangerous and deadly beverages.30 day cool-off period.Chemical tagging of all paper or plastic cups.Monthly inspections of your beverage collection.Cap locks for child protection from injury.

HotWingConspiracy:salvador.hardin: The fact that this judge is even discussing the merits of the policy and bringing up the refills shows that this is a political move by a low rung judge looking to make some headlines off Bloomberg's name.

Basically. The timing is what gave it away for me. 24 hours before the law goes in to action? Dude wanted his name in the papers as some kind of hero.

The suit was filed in October. They probably had to scramble to get it in front of a judge this quickly.

And can it really be considered a "law" if it wasn't passed in a legal manner?

Schroedinger's Glory Hole:MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions...

It seems as if you answered your own question.

Taking incomplete quotes, it seems as if you make uncited infographics for GOP shill Facebook pages.

"Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations. You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable."

Since you're so insistent, let's break down and examine the entire statement, in a logical order.

The perceived problem which, for some reason, came last: "You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable." An entire population? Force fed? Seems like hyperbole to me, but let's assume you are exactly right.

Your solution: "Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?"

The logical argument against your solution: "Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations."

Your proposal is to "stop allowing" something, not "nudge overall decisions." I snipped the quote where I did because that was a sufficient amount to illustrate that your argument contradicts itself. Seemed rather obvious. Why don't we stop allowing "insert bad decision here"? Because public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions. The rest of what you said does not change that.

MacWizard:Schroedinger's Glory Hole: MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions...

It seems as if you answered your own question.

Taking incomplete quotes, it seems as if you make uncited infographics for GOP shill Facebook pages.

"Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations. You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable."

Since you're so insistent, let's break down and examine the entire statement, in a logical order.

The perceived problem which, for some reason, came last: "You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable." An entire population? Force fed? Seems like hyperbole to me, but let's assume you are exactly right.

Your solution: "Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?"

The logical argument against your solution: "Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations."

Your proposal is to "stop allowing" something, not "nudge overall decisions." I snipped the quote where I did because that was a sufficient amount to illustrate that your argument contradicts itself. Seemed rather obvious. Why don't we stop allowing "insert bad decision here"? Because public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions. The rest of what you said does not change that.

MacWizard:Schroedinger's Glory Hole: MacWizard: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions...

It seems as if you answered your own question.

Taking incomplete quotes, it seems as if you make uncited infographics for GOP shill Facebook pages.

"Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP? Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations. You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable."

Since you're so insistent, let's break down and examine the entire statement, in a logical order.

The perceived problem which, for some reason, came last: "You have an entire population of children essentially being force fed "healthy" whole grains and sugar water, and this population is the most vulnerable." An entire population? Force fed? Seems like hyperbole to me, but let's assume you are exactly right.

Your solution: "Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juice and other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC and SNAP?"

The logical argument against your solution: "Public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions and more about nudging the overall decisions of populations."

Your proposal is to "stop allowing" something, not "nudge overall decisions." I snipped the quote where I did because that was a sufficient amount to illustrate that your argument contradicts itself. Seemed rather obvious. Why don't we stop allowing "insert bad decision here"? Because public health is not about preventing individual bad decisions. The rest of what you said does not change that.

When these families get nearly of their sustenance from government assistance, then it is important for the government to make sure that what is provided is nutritionally appropriate. So while you may see "force fed" as a hyperbole, it is the only option available for many families. It was awkwardly worded, and "stop allowing" was not the right choice because it implies curtailing a certain right. What I am proposing is a correction to the policy that no longer includes calorie dense beverages on the WIC/SNAP approved foods list. When you have a vulnerable population that relies on food that is provided to them, it shouldn't give them metabolic syndrome. I am pretty sure that amending a list that is grounded in bad science and failed public health policy is still considered proper corrective public health action.

In short, "Don't drink this because I said" is bad policy and I mistakenly gave the impression that is what I was on board for. What I meant it to come off as is, "Don't drink that anymore because it was on faulty evidence we gave it to you in the first place."

spickus:Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Why don't we do something useful like stop allowing juiceand other sugary beverages to be purchased with WIC

Because the WIC program is intended to provide juice to women and children while disallowing other sugary beverages. SNAP... not so much.

My bad lumping in WIC/SNAP regulations. But juice is still not acceptable. If you aren't consuming the fiber with the fruit then you're farking yourself. It's the difference between eating a bunch of whole oranges and downing a glass of orange juice.

Schroedinger's Glory Hole:My bad lumping in WIC/SNAP regulations. But juice is still not acceptable. If you aren't consuming the fiber with the fruit then you're farking yourself. It's the difference between eating a bunch of whole oranges and downing a glass of orange juice.

I see your point. I think the reason for allowing juice on WIC is to provide an alternative to other sugary drinks that parents may consume or give a toddler. We mistakenly assume since it's all natural juice that it must be healthy. Perhaps it's time to review WIC approved foods. SNAP should have an approved foods list like WIC.

Because the WIC program is intended to provide juice to women and children while disallowing other sugary beverages. SNAP... not so much.

My bad lumping in WIC/SNAP regulations. But juice is still not acceptable. If you aren't consuming the fiber with the fruit then you're farking yourself. It's the difference between eating a bunch of whole oranges and downing a glass of orange juice.

That's complete rubbish. You can get your dietary fiber through many sources, but fruit and vegetable juices remain one of the most nutritional choices available. Keep in mind that means 100% juice, not crap like Sunny D or what you get from your average juice box.

Because the WIC program is intended to provide juice to women and children while disallowing other sugary beverages. SNAP... not so much.

My bad lumping in WIC/SNAP regulations. But juice is still not acceptable. If you aren't consuming the fiber with the fruit then you're farking yourself. It's the difference between eating a bunch of whole oranges and downing a glass of orange juice.

That's complete rubbish. You can get your dietary fiber through many sources, but fruit and vegetable juices remain one of the most nutritional choices available. Keep in mind that means 100% juice, not crap like Sunny D or what you get from your average juice box.

Vegetable juice is fine, it is low in sugar. Even 100% juice should be treated as all sugared beverages.

Juan, a 100 lb. six-year old Latino boy whose mother is a non-English-speaking farm worker from Salinas, California, comes to my clinic in 2003. He is wider than he is tall. I ask the mother in my broken Spanish, "I don't care what your kid eats, tell me what he drinks." No soda, but a gallon of orange juice per day. On calories alone, this amount accounts for 112 lbs/yr of body fat. of course, some of that is burned off, and it might influence total food intake. I explain to the mother, "La frutta es bueno, el jugos es malo (the fruit is good, the juice is bad). Eat the fruit, don't drink the juice." She then asks, "Then why does WIC (Women, Infants, and Children; a government entitlement program for the poor run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) give it to us?"

If you find that article interesting and have an hour or so to spare, his lecture here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM is fantastic. This isn't some new age health retard, he does bariatric surgery on babies and specializes in pediatric endocrinology.

"Every one of these diseases has become more prevalent over the past 30 years. What's more, all of them are now found in children as young as 5. We have an epidemic of obese 6-month olds!"

What's even more shocking is that this is no longer a first world problem, shattering the idea that increased prosperity = increased obesity. Even in the developing world, obesity is a bigger problem than undernutrition. There is a long history of substances that went from commonplace to controlled in a matter of years. My guess is sugar is next.